Census: Half of Americans Are Poor or Low-Income

[Sheilbh]

I never got that about the US, how the poor and screwed over vote for the baby eating party which wants to screw them over more.

Different cultural issues.  But if you look at rural poverty in this country - which not enough people care about - then you'll find lots of people who'd never vote Labour.  Similarly why Labour supporters in South Shields vote for some think tank foetus with a red rossette rather than a local Tory who may care considerably more.

[Ideologue]

I don't think that's true.  I think it was a good thing that the message embraced people who are not conventionally poor, or not poor at all, but who face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different than the poor.

You really think people all the way up to the 99th percentile "face fears and pressures not terribly qualitatively different thant the poor?"  Seriously?

That's not what he said at all.  This is why I don't like the 99% stuff.  It's a distraction, a constant waiting straw man.

Ide said people who are not conventionally poor or not poor at all facing the fears and pressures not that different from the poor.  I think that's undoubtedly the case.  Just look at Ide's list - one layoff, a medical emergency, I'd add trying to think of college for the kids, mortgage and debt repayments.  I think many people both the poor and people who were once middle class are facing very really fears and pressures.  Does that go up to 99th percentile?  Who can say, and who cares?

Right.

I mean, what does Yi want from me?  To brand the 99% folks class-traitors and demand them purged?

But seriously, Yi, I guess you have a point.  Perhaps fear and pressure are cut off somewhere before the 99th percentile.  Perhaps the 97th.  Perhaps the 82d.  I don't think specific mathematics are the important part of the message, but rather that massive income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the U.S.--and an implication that the progressives in America are not out to destroy the middle class for the benefit of the poor, but to save it for the benefit of (mostly, roughly 99% of) everyone.

And on the lighter side:

think tank foetus with a red rossette

I know this is funny, but I have no idea what it means.

[MadImmortalMan]

But seriously, Yi, I guess you have a point.  Perhaps fear and pressure are cut off somewhere before the 99th percentile.  Perhaps the 97th.  Perhaps the 82d.  I don't think specific mathematics are the important part of the message, but rather that massive income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the U.S.--and an implication that the progressives in America are not out to destroy the middle class for the benefit of the poor, but to save it for the benefit of everyone.

Then from a strategy standpoint, why present the 99% thing out there when it's clearly something that can be targeted as flawed? Wouldn't it be more effective to address the actual problem or create some other symbol that is less prone to mockery?

[Ed Anger]

When I was 'po, I hated the Dems. Hated Barney Fag, hated Maxine Waters, hated that Conyers fuck up in Michigan. And still do. Had a stupid hate for Bill, but got over that.

But now that I'm saner, I just hate everybody.

Except for you Bayh and Harold Ford jr. Why won't you run? 

[Admiral Yi]

But seriously, Yi, I guess you have a point.  Perhaps fear and pressure are cut off somewhere before the 99th percentile.  Perhaps the 97th.  Perhaps the 82d.  I don't think specific mathematics are the important part of the message, but rather that massive income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the U.S.--and an implication that the progressives in America are not out to destroy the middle class for the benefit of the poor, but to save it for the benefit of (mostly, roughly 99% of) everyone.

Have you ever asked yourself the question how exactly it is that income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the US?  Most progressives I have seen trying to advance the tax the rich argument are very careful about not making any explicit claims about causality (except for the defensible one about paying for political results) because they know they won't stand up.  Instead they just mention the two phenomena in tandem constantly, and hope people leave with the sure knowledge that income inequality *causes* an increase in poverty.

The thing that pisses me off about this whole 99% nonsense is it includes as good guys a whole shit load of people who are doing pretty fucking well for themselves.  A single guy earning $200K is a struggling, fearful member of the middle class being oppressed by millionaires and billionaires?  Give me a goddamn break.  If we're going to transfer wealth in this country, hit those guys up too so there's more to transfer.  There's a buttload more of them and taken together they have a lot more money that can be transferred than the 1%.

[Ideologue]

Then from a strategy standpoint, why present the 99% thing out there when it's clearly something that can be targeted as flawed? Wouldn't it be more effective to address the actual problem or create some other symbol that is less prone to mockery?

Well, check this.

Bringing in my personal experience: my parents made $130,000 a year together, putting them in the top 15% of wage earners in the United States.  They worry about their kids who make less, or are poised to make less, adjusted for inflation, than they did at the same age, with the same level of education* and with grossly higher debt burdens.  I gather that this is not at all an isolated case, a recession limited to me and my family alone.

So even the top flights of the 99% have to worry about the world their children will inherit and the downward social mobility of their families.

To more directly answer you:

1)everything is potentially subject to mockery.
2)trying to apply a descriptive label to a heterogeneous group is always going to be difficult unless you make it very abstract.  Take the X-Men, for example.  Not all men.  The United States: not all territory subject to U.S. jurisdiction is a state.  Bon Jovi: only 25% of the band actually named Bon Jovi.
3)the name is aspirational, not necessarily strictly descriptive, seeking to unite everyone who needs help, setting a liberal cutoff point at the 99th percentile, above which self-reliance (if not outright enmity) can be rightly assumed.
4)it still sounds good at first blush, and sounding good is not unimportant.

*My sister has a bachelor's like my stepmom, and I have a J.D. while my dad has an M.A. Barrister Boy, I will put a curse on you if you say this is not equivalent.

Have you ever asked yourself the question how exactly it is that income inequality adversely affects virtually everyone in the US?  Most progressives I have seen trying to advance the tax the rich argument are very careful about not making any explicit claims about causality (except for the defensible one about paying for political results) because they know they won't stand up.  Instead they just mention the two phenomena in tandem constantly, and hope people leave with the sure knowledge that income inequality *causes* an increase in poverty.

Well, I didn't say it was a causal factor in that it directly created poverty; what I'm saying is that greater levels of poverty (comparative, to accept MIM's argument about Somalia) are a result of take-home income inequality, in that greater levels of poverty can be associated with a lower tax burden and inability to fund a social safety net.  I know you don't like to think that lack of a welfare program is an adverse result, so perhaps I chose my words poorly for these purposes, but that's our philosophical differences.

But, if I were to suggest any causal relationship, I would actually flip it on its head and suggest that wage depression (associated with poverty) causes income inequality.  The owning class (I'm getting a little tired, so imagine I used a less politically charged term here; one didn't come to me)--they wind up with cheaper labor that offsets either in part or in full or beyond any reduction in demand, while the lower socioeconomic classes simply make do with less real income.  The causes of wage depression are beyond the scope of this argument; but an increased tax burden (and the social safety net it buys) reduces that inequality and provides better outcomes for the vast majority of people when things go bad.

I don't actually care much about income inequality in an abstract way, but consider it a symptom of deeper problems.

The thing that pisses me off about this whole 99% nonsense is it includes as good guys a whole shit load of people who are doing pretty fucking well for themselves.  A single guy earning $200K is a struggling, fearful member of the middle class being oppressed by millionaires and billionaires?  Give me a goddamn break.  If we're going to transfer wealth in this country, hit those guys up too so there's more to transfer.  There's a buttload more of them and taken together they have a lot more money that can be transferred than the 1%.

Hey, don't think I don't agree with this proposal.   But a single guy with $200k is up there, like top 3%.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, I didn't say it was a causal factor.

You said adversely affects.  If you meant the super rich adversely affect everyone elses' posture, or morals, or something else unrelated to income, then I withdraw the comment.

[Sheilbh]

You said adversely affects.  If you meant the super rich adversely affect everyone elses' posture, or morals, or something else unrelated to income, then I withdraw the comment.

Income inequality adversely affects society.  It's one of a number of factors no doubt but it has a negative effect.

[Ideologue]

Well, I didn't say it was a causal factor.

You said adversely affects.  If you meant the super rich adversely affect everyone elses' posture, or morals, or something else unrelated to income, then I withdraw the comment.

I'm sorry.  I went and edited that as I realized the first draft looked stupid ("It's not a causal factor... but this is a result of.." ).  The new version:

Well, I didn't say it was a causal factor in that it directly created poverty; what I'm saying is that greater levels of poverty (comparative, to accept MIM's argument about Somalia) are a result of take-home income inequality, in that greater levels of poverty can be associated with a lower tax burden and inability to fund a social safety net.  I know you don't like to think that lack of a welfare program is an adverse result, so perhaps I chose my words poorly for these purposes, but that's our philosophical differences.

[MadImmortalMan]

In the mid 90s my household had seven kids and an 18k/yr income. I suppose that affects my outlook a bit.

[Admiral Yi]

Income inequality adversely affects society.  It's one of a number of factors no doubt but it has a negative effect.

When Money comes in here burning me in effigy for daring to question that inequality causes lower incomes, which side will you be on?

Ide: I think we should transferring wealth at 80K.

[Josephus]

There's your Republican base! 

I never got that about the US, how the poor and screwed over vote for the baby eating party which wants to screw them over more.

Low class consciousness.

[Ideologue]

Income inequality adversely affects society.  It's one of a number of factors no doubt but it has a negative effect.

When Money comes in here burning me in effigy for daring to question that inequality causes lower incomes, which side will you be on?

Ide: I think we should transferring wealth at 80K.

Per household or per dude?  And what do you mean by transfer?  Certainly an 80k household needs to be paying taxes, but not confiscatory ones.

I never really conceived of the 99% as a call that 99% of Americans no longer pay any income tax.

[Admiral Yi]

Per household or per dude?  And what do you mean by transfer?  Certainly an 80k household needs to be paying taxes, but not confiscatory ones.

I never really conceived of the 99% as a call that 99% of Americans no longer pay any income tax.

Per dude.  Married couples we start at 120.  By transfer I mean whatever excellent ideas the Occupy folks, Bernie Sanders, and Michael Moore had, as long as I get my fair share.

[garbon]

Per household or per dude?  And what do you mean by transfer?  Certainly an 80k household needs to be paying taxes, but not confiscatory ones.

I never really conceived of the 99% as a call that 99% of Americans no longer pay any income tax.

Per dude.  Married couples we start at 120.  By transfer I mean whatever excellent ideas the Occupy folks, Bernie Sanders, and Michael Moore had, as long as I get my fair share.

Rather unfair. New York is extremely expensive!